If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Also, adverbials like these days, these weeks, these years, can work alone, dispensing with preposition. :o

The past does have aspects- the past progressive, for instance. The past tense simple is more about locating something in time, than trying to show it's completion or not. I can see your point and it's tricky to give a complete answer. The past simple is complete, but I would say the past progressive (incomplete) and the past perfect (complete) are the real aspects. The latter is used to emphasise completion at a particular point in the past. The past simple isn'y- it could denote a habit.

Also, adverbials like these days, these weeks, these years, can work alone, dispensing with preposition. :o

The past does have aspects- the past progressive, for instance. The past tense simple is more about locating something in time, than trying to show it's completion or not. I can see your point and it's tricky to give a complete answer. The past simple is complete, but I would say the past progressive (incomplete) and the past perfect (complete) are the real aspects. The latter is used to emphasise completion at a particular point in the past. The past simple isn'y- it could denote a habit.

The term 'complete' is used in reference to two events. One event completes the other; this is not to say that one or both events are finished (completed). There are two meaning here. Shun is under the assumption that 'complete' refers to the actual meaning of the verb:

I was skiing in Banff when I saw the yeti.

The events of skiing and seeing are finished. "I was skiing" can stand alone without the help of "when I saw the yeti."

Compare:

I had eaten before she arrived.

The events of eating and arriving are finished; 'I had eaten' cannot stand alone. It needs to pass its meaning onward. It's completed by 'she arrived'.

The term 'complete' is used in reference to two events. One event completes the other; this is not to say that one or both events are finished (completed). There are two meaning here. Shun is under the assumption that 'complete' refers to the actual meaning of the verb:

I was skiing in Banff when I saw the yeti.

The events of skiing and seeing are finished. "I was skiing" can stand alone without the help of "when I saw the yeti."

Compare:

I had eaten before she arrived.

The events of eating and arriving are finished; 'I had eaten' cannot stand alone. It needs to pass its meaning onward. It's completed by 'she arrived'.

(Ron raises his hand and waves it wildly about.) Teacher, I know that one. That is complete. "I have eaten" needs nothing to complete it, because it denotes a finished action. (It's present perfect.) However, "I had eaten" awaits something to give it completion, perhaps only one additional word, thus: "I had eaten already."

(Ron raises his hand and waves it wildly about.) Teacher, I know that one. That is complete. "I have eaten" needs nothing to complete it, because it denotes a finished action. (It's present perfect.) However, "I had eaten" awaits something to give it completion, perhaps only one additional word, thus: "I had eaten already."

(Ron raises his hand and waves it wildly about.) Teacher, I know that one. That is complete. "I have eaten" needs nothing to complete it, because it denotes a finished action. (It's present perfect.) However, "I had eaten" awaits something to give it completion, perhaps only one additional word, thus: "I had eaten already."

Well now, you see, that's Shun's argument right there. If "I have lived" is complete (with)in itself, then what differentiates the Present Perfect from, say, the Simple tenses "I live" and "I lived"?

Thing is, it's not that the action has finished per se; rather, it's that the Present completes the Past, or the Past is completed by the Present:

"I have lived...(up until now)".

Implied "up until now", often omitted, ends the cycle. In other words, the

Present perfect expresses a cylce that starts in the Past and ends now in the Present. The Present completes the Past.

:D

What do you think? That is, can you think of any examples that contradict this?

:D

The trouble with Shun's argument is that "I have lived" only works as a complete statement if I am dead. As a practical matter however, it doesn't work very well, because dead people rarely join in any conversations about grammar or anything else.

:wink:

I seem to have a knack for finding instances in which "impossible" statements are indeed possible. I apologize for that, but I think that does have practical value (in discussions of grammar if nowhere else).

The trouble with Shun's argument is that "I have lived" only works as a complete statement if I am dead. As a practical matter however, it doesn't work very well, because dead people rarely join in any conversations about grammar or anything else.

OK, then what about "I have lived in this house all of my life and I still live there now".